ARE WE LIVING IN THE ERA OF ETHICAL MARKETING?
In the past, the issue of morality and ethics has led to the emergence of an industry with a specific focus - the so-called ethical marketing. The main idea is based on the simple premise that reputation is one of the basic intangible assets available to companies. Accordingly, great demands are placed on marketers, as they must bear in mind not only the protection of their own brand but also that of consumers, specific categories such as children or ethnic minorities, as well as society as a whole. Simply put, they take responsibility for ensuring that the brand they represent communicates honestly, accurately and with respect for human individuality and dignity.
There is the Institute for Advertising Ethics operating under the umbrella of the multinational technology company Microsoft. The institute is a research think tank, engaged in research on ethics and morality in the world of advertising. It is thus not surprising that the concept of ethical marketing is at the heart of this institute’s concerns. It has even developed a nine-point guideline that should be followed by all companies whose aim is to build its reputation in a way that always puts the consumer before all other values. A company’s reputation is thus a logical outcome of the application of the rules of ethical marketing.
In simple terms, the nine principles are as follows:
- The imperative of truth and high ethical standards.
- Individual responsibility and advertising standards.
- Clear distinction between advertising and other media formats.
- Transparent communication of all recommendations, commitments, and requirements to consumers.
- Appropriateness of advertising for the target audience.
- Absolute inviolability of individual privacy.
- Respect for local rules and laws.
- Effective internal communication and respect for different opinions.
- Transparency of corporate culture, processes, and functioning.
Do you think that most of the above principles go without saying? In practice, it is not always that simple. What is indisputable, however, is that the balance is tipping more and more in favour of the consumer as we live in an information and digital society. Microsoft’s own 2020 survey revealed that up to 63% of respondents had no problem abandoning a brand they had lost trust in. Nearly 70% would not even consider returning to a brand that had betrayed their trust. These figures nicely sum up the main point of the ethical marketing concept - behave decently and respectfully, because you will not get a second chance.
IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC, WE RESPECT THE STATUTORY MINIMUM
The basic boundaries for marketers in the Czech Republic are embodied in the Advertising Regulation Act. Compared to other legislation, it is a relatively brief and economical regulation, which is rather an overview of deviations from the generally accepted standard, and therefore focuses mainly on sectors where advertising is problematic by its very nature.
In the general section, the reader will find basic definitions and a list of everything that is prohibited. The relevant provisions correlate in many respects with the rules on unfair competition contained in the Civil Code. Other provisions are less strict. For example, comparative advertising is a traditionally debated topic. This type of advertising is not prohibited a priori, but marketers must be careful not to exceed the limits set by law. A specific part of the law lists the products and sectors to which special rules apply.
As the scope of the Act is quite broad in terms of subject matter, the same applies to the spread of supervisory powers and competence. The Advertising Regulation Act grants them to a wide range of public bodies, which is another factor that marketers need to bear in mind. In general, the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting has dominion over any advertising content broadcast on television or radio. The powers of the other institutions follow from the logic of the Act and its individual sections.
ETHICAL BOUNDARIES ARE A MATTER OF SELF-REGULATION
It is clear that statutory regulation is somewhat limited and restricted to specific sectors that the legislator considers to be risky for logical reasons. It follows, however, that the ethics and boundaries of permissible advertising are primarily an issue to be addressed by the segment itself. To this end, the Advertising Council, a non-governmental civil society organisation was established in 1994 to supplement the regulatory minimum with clear ethical rules. It is therefore an element of self-regulation aimed at protecting society from moral and ethical dangers.
In many cases, the Advertising Council acts on consumer complaints, but it can also decide to take action against questionable advertising of its own accord. However, the Advertising Council’s jurisdiction ends where the law does. If there is an explicit breach of the law, the whole matter becomes the exclusive competence of the state authorities. The Council is a non-state organisation that cannot impose fines, but its recommendations carry some expert weight.
Its undisputed main instrument is the Code of the Advertising Council, which is, in simple terms, the magnum opus of Czech advertising ethics. The Council deals with virtually all advertising formats on its own initiative; the only area it takes a hands-off approach to is election campaigns and political advertising in general. Logically, its activities are very varied and in its almost 30-year history, it has dealt with many violations of the Code, which have left an unflattering mark on the reputation of domestic and multinational companies.
CODE OF ETHICS IN ACTION
The Advertising Council’s Code of Ethics follows the same logic as the Advertising Regulation Act. However, unlike the latter, it puts at the forefront a clearly defined value statement consisting of four key components - decency, honesty, truthfulness, and social responsibility. The following are again some basic provisions that address the most common forms of unethical advertising. Following the model of the law, the Code incorporates specific rules for specific industries. If an advertisement allegedly violates any of the rules, the Council will proceed to arbitration.
What might a particular advertisement that violates the Code of Ethics look like?
ADVERTISING THAT DENIGRATES OR DISPARAGES COMPETITORS
It is a classic format - one company wants to outshine another and uses comparative advertising to demonstrate exactly how its product is better than the competitive one. The Code prohibits such conduct; intentional disparagement of a competitor may not be done directly or indirectly. Even a mere suggestion is not allowed, which is very difficult to assess in practice. In general, however, any advertising in which comparisons are made concerning a specific competing product is unethical.
In 2015, the Advertising Council received a number of complaints about a new advertising campaign by South Korean carmaker Hyundai. The very name of the campaign - Neighbour from Boleslav - hints at the competitor from which the manufacturer of the new i20 Orion was trying to differentiate. The carmaker lured people to the car’s large interior, which “the competition can’t bear”. It is rather debatable to what extent this advertisement disparaged the competition directly or indirectly; on the other hand, the viewer obviously did not miss this intention and did not appreciate it. Although Hyundai did not comment on the arbitration, the Advertising Council agreed with the complainants and found the advertisement to be defective. As a result, the advertisement was taken off the air.
Video: Hyundai – Neighbour from Boleslav (2015)
ADVERTISING THAT VIOLATES GENERAL STANDARDS OF MORALITY AND DECENCY
Be careful with exaggeration. The Code of Ethics contains a section in its introductory provisions that advertising must not contain a visual presentation that grossly violates generally accepted standards of decency and morality. It is of course questionable what exactly is meant by this - the Code specifically mentions the presentation of the human body, but also adds that the overall context, the relationship to the product, the target group, and the medium used are important for the arbitration process. Special attention is paid to the protection of human dignity.
For example, Kofola faced a similar predicament in 2011. It came under the Advertising Council’s scrutiny following complaints about an advertisement in which a teacher kisses a pupil. According to Kofola, the main leitmotif of the ad was unconditional love, but according to the complaining parties and the Council, it was a presentation in conflict with what was ethical and acceptable. While the company continued to claim that it was hyperbole, which the younger generation for whom the ad is primarily intended would understand, this did not help the Extra Herbal Kofola spot.
Video: Kofola – Extra Herbal Kofola (2011)
ADVERTISING THAT USES INAPPROPRIATE PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
A personal recommendation from a celebrity or other public figure is not in itself problematic, according to the Advertising Council. However, care must be taken as to how such a recommendation is framed and to what product it relates. Such a recommendation must be truthful in all circumstances and must not be a random blank cheque. This problem is eliminated if you directly involve the author of the recommendation in the advertisement. At the same time, the communication must not contradict other sections of the Code of Ethics, which is something that companies have a problem with from time to time.
A rather historic 2007 advert for the alcoholic drink Fernet Berentzen featured actor, singer, and presenter Sagvan Tofi, who unashamedly recommended alcohol as a solution to personal problems. To this end, a pop culture reference to the 1980s film Kamarád do deště, for which Tofi became famous, was used. In the ad, the actor makes claims such as that alcohol is a “buddy” or that it “always backs him up”. Given the increased attention paid to the presentation of alcoholic beverages by the Code of Ethics and the Advertising Regulation Act, it is not surprising that this spot did not stay on the air for long.
Video: Fernet Berentzen – Kamarád do deště (2007)
ADVERTISING THAT ENDANGERS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN
The Advertising Council pays special attention to advertising aimed at children and young people. This is based on the traditional arguments that the volitional and discerning faculty develops until a certain age and therefore it is easier for marketers to influence children in a way that suits the needs of the current campaign. This increased protection is particularly evident in messages that encourage children to engage in some economic activity for which other people, particularly their parents, will bear the consequences. The attention paid to the physical safety and smooth psychological development of the little ones is also an integral aspect of this special protection.
These rules had to be considered by the Advertising Council in the case of a private complaint about ŠKODA’s 2011 TV campaign for the Fabia II, entitled “Swap the old for the new”. According to the author of the complaint, the advertisement explicitly suggests that it is roughly as difficult to replace a woman with a new one as it is to replace an old Fabia with a new one, which can negatively affect the psychological development of the children watching, create gender disparity and have a major impact on the self-esteem of young girls. Of course, the pun in the ad logically operates with something like this because the whole point is based on ambiguity. However, the aim of the presentation is not to draw attention to the exchange as such but to customer loyalty and the reward for a long-term relationship, which the complainant did not understand, according to ŠKODA’s representatives. In this case, the Advertising Council decided in favour of the advertiser and the advertisement was found to be ethical and unproblematic despite the complaint.
Video: ŠKODA AUTO – Swap the old for the new (2011)
ADVERTISING THAT PROMOTES OR INAPPROPRIATELY DEPICTS VIOLENCE
The Advertising Council’s Code of Ethics clearly states that advertising has certain functions in the field of social responsibility. Therefore, any presentation that overuses the fear motif, exploits prejudice and superstition or is offensive to minorities is considered unethical. Special protection is given to national identity and cultural traditions, although it is not a priori forbidden to depict foreign or other traditions. Conversely, what is strictly prohibited is any promotion of violence or glorification of behaviour that could lead to acts of violence. And often hyperbole is not acceptable either.
The food company Walmark felt this first-hand in 2002 when it went too far in advertising its soft drink Relax Fruit Drink, according to the Advertising Council. What bothered those who complained is fairly obvious - the spot contains a sequence in which a muscleman lifts a young boy into the air and then throws him down a flight of stairs. The complaints were unanimous in their view that the ad was inappropriate and downright disgusting. Moreover, it did not help the advertiser that the violence in the advert was perpetrated against children. The presentation was essentially doomed to failure from the outset. The Advertising Council found the advertisement to be defective, but Walmark was quite quick to recognise this and modify it before the Council’s final recommendation was issued. This is the amicable way in which some of the cases dealt with by the Council can end.
Video: Relax Fruit Drink – The better you shake it, the better it tastes (2002)
ADVERTISING THAT THREATENS THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHILE ENCOURAGING VIOLENCE
The fluid nature of the rules contained in the Code is best illustrated in cases where complaints allege that an advertisement is defective in more than one respect. Such situations are by no means exceptional - it is not the law, so the individual complaints are expected to be cumulative. Advertisers should therefore always bear in mind that there are plenty of ways to create unethical advertising and it is not worth focusing all your attention on avoiding only some of the problematic aspects.
A good example is the cult ad for Fidorka from 2001, which also sparked a rather lively discussion about whether we are sometimes more Catholic than the Pope when interpreting ethical boundaries. The main protagonist of the criticised spot is a little girl who gets her hands on a coveted biscuit in a rather controversial way - with the help of a trick that shoots airbags in the face of passengers in a car at a crossing. For her, this means the perfect opportunity to capture Fidorka. Many marketing experts agree to this day that it was an excellent advertisement. But its airing triggered a firestorm that saw millions of crowns in fines and resulted in the ad being condemned to air after 10 p.m. The whole thing was only brought to an end by the Supreme Administrative Court, which abolished the obligation to pay fines in 2006. However, the controversial precedent was already in place by then.
Video: Fidorka – If U Have 2, U Have 2! (2001)
ADVERTISING THAT ENCOURAGES VIEWERS TO ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT
As already mentioned, the Advertising Council’s Code of Ethics exists to fill in the blind spots that the law cannot reach. To some extent, it acts as a vanguard, and it is therefore logical that any suspicion that an advertisement encourages a breach of the law will be judged ethically objectionable. But it is clear that creative work sometimes uses motives that may not be liked - that is an occupational hazard. Marketers have a chance of avoiding sanctions if their work makes it sufficiently clear that it is hyperbole. The Advertising Council understands that, but it really needs to be a reality rather than an excuse.
In 2020, Česká mincovna saw the consequences of its inability to make a point with a sufficient amount of hyperbole. The advertisement was linked to the current events in the case of corruption in the top levels of Czech football. In terms of content, it used some common phrases that have become popular in connection with those events, but the Arbitration Commission of the Advertising Council missed the hyperbole. According to the Commission, it is not obvious at first sight that it is a parody - on the contrary, it appears to approve of the objectionable behaviour. In particular, it disliked phrases such as “quality bribe” in the accompanying campaign, which all added up to the ad being found objectionable despite the advertiser’s reasoning. Česká mincovna therefore had to find other ways to promote its investment coins, which was not impossible as it has repeatedly proven.
Video: Česká mincovna – District football (2020)
These are just snippets from the rich decision-making practice of the Advertising Council, which deals with dozens of complaints every year. The mosaic is relatively varied, as there are many reasons why an advertisement may be found to be objectionable. Naturally, this is supported by the loose logic of the Code of Ethics, which leaves plenty of room for deliberation. However, the Advertising Council and its Code are an imaginary protective wall of the Czech judiciary and administrative authorities, whose decision-making in such cases would probably be lengthy and too cumbersome. It is therefore the main shield that protects the domestic advertising environment from unethical presentation of brands. And in doing so, it helps cultivate an environment in which marketing is done decently, ethically and with an eye to protecting the end consumer.
